Estudo comparativo entre a tonometria de aplanação (Perkins) e a tonometria de não-contato (Topcon CT-20) em olhos glaucomatosos e normais

Estudo comparativo entre a tonometria de aplanação (Perkins) e a tonometria de não-contato (Topcon CT-20) em olhos glaucomatosos e normais


Patrícia Ioschpe Gus,
Patrícia Barreto Vianna Skolaude,
Viviane Soares Kosmalski,
Ana Paula Gerstner,
Idel Luiz Kwitko,
Sérgio Kwitko


Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia

versão impressa ISSN 0004-2749versão On-line ISSN 1678-2925

Arq. Bras. Oftalmol. vol.61 no.1 São Paulo fev. 1998


Applanation tonometry has some disadvantages such as potencial risk of infection, need of anesthetic eye drops and possibility of being influenced by hipojluorescence or hiperjluorescence of lacrimal film, corneal thickness and astigmatism. Non-contact tonometry offers advantages such as small risk of infection and ease of use.

We analysed 80 eyes of patients from the Glaucoma Service and from the General Clinic of the Ophthalmology Service of Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre, to compare noncontact tonometry with applanation tonometry. Intraocular pressure (IOP) was evaluated with the manual applanation tonometer (Perkins) and with the non-contact tonometer (Topcon CT-20). Keratometry and paquimetry were also evaluated.

This study showed good correlation between two tonometers, although non-contact tonometer had the tendency of registering predominantly higher pressures. This difference was statistically significant only when IOP was above 20 mmHg in patients with glaucoma.

Keratometry showed a positive correlation with applanation tonometer (r = 0.22; P < 0.05) and paquimetry (thicker corneas) showed a positive correlation with non-contact tonometry (r = 0.34; P < 0.001).

We suggest that measures above 20 mmHg with non-contact tonometer should be confirmed by applanation tonometry, to avoid mistaken or precipitated clinicai decisions. Intraocular measures below 20 mmHg do not seem to offer false-negative results.

Key-words: Applanation tonometry; Non-contact tonometry; Glaucoma


1 Moreno-Montanes J, Gomez-Demmel E, Lajara-Blesa J, Madrid DAP. Comparative study of three non-contact tonometers and the Goldmann tonometer. Ophthalmologica, 1994;208: 115-8, .
2 Kopmans AS, Kooijman AC, Van Rij G, Eisses JE Groot-Woltjer J. Clinical evaluation of two non-contact tonometers. Documenta Ophthalmologica 1991;78:259-63.
3 Ralston ME, Choplin NT, Hollembach KA, Applegate BJ, Henn TW. Glaucoma screening in primary care: the role of noncontact tonometry. The J. Family Practice 1992;34:73-7.
4 Whitacre MM, Stein R Sources of error with use of Goldmann-type tonometers. Surv Ophthalmol 1993;38: 1-30.
5 Argus WA. Ocular hypertension and central comeal thickness. Ophthamol 1995;102:1810-2.
6 Calixto N, Cronemberger S, Calixto JM, Antunes CS. Estudo comparativo entre a tonometria de nao-contato com o tonômetro pulsair e a tonometria de aplanação de Goldmann. Rev Bras Oftal, 1994;53:171-7.
7 Moseley MJ, Thompson JR, Deutsch J, Misson GP, Naylor G, Tan-Yee A, Taylor RH, Fielder AR. Comparison of the Keeler pulsair 2000 non-contact tonometer with Goldmann applanation. Eye 1993;7:127-30.